This TSRP took two weeks off and enjoyed being at home and away from the computer. During the break the Courts kept issuing opinions, so here is my humble attempt to catch up:
State v Vandergriff issued June 28th:
Mr. Vandergriff was stopped in the middle of a 2 lane highway. A deputy had to slam on his brakes to keep from hitting him. The deputy did not suspect a crime, but thought the pick up truck was broken down. He activated his blue lights, so that other cars would not slam into his patrol car or Vandergriff. The conviction was upheld. The defendant argued the deputy activated his blue lights without reasonable suspicion. He did just that. The Court stated:
"To expect this officer to nearly slam into a parked car on a public roadway after dark with moderate traffic in the area - and not allow him to stop and investigate following the activation of his blue lights for safety reasons - is not logical. Indeed, to not take that action could result in a violation of the officer’s caretaking duty to other motorists to ensure their safety on the roadway."
Read about it at:
State v Gaddis issue June 25th
Mr. Gaddis was in a crash in which the investigating trooper concluded that he pulled out in front of a pick-up truck and was struck from the side. he had a BAC over .20 and was a second time offender.
Gaddis claimed at trial that an ex girlfriend had pushed him into the intersection from behind. The jury rejected the defense and his conviction was affirmed.
Read the case at:
State v Young, issued June 22nd
Mr. Young refused to perform standardized field sobriety tests and refused to take a blood test. Then he argued that the State did not have enough evidence to convict, because all the State had was the observations made by the officer and a video showing some bad driving. The driving included a u-turn and a wide turn in which he veered into a ditch. He had slurred speech, was disoriented and took over a minute to get his license from his wallet. The Court stated,
"We note that this court has consistently held that an arresting officer’s testimony alone is sufficient to support a defendant’s conviction for DUI."
Read the case at:
I think that catches me up on the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Now, it is time to read the new Federal Transportation Act passed last week.
Posts
